Friends of Lucifer, a religious group, seeks a permit to conduct an overnight encampment and a campfire on United States National Park Service land atop Mt. Snow. The park has a blanket ban on overnight camping and campfires for safety. The park superintendent denies the permit. Which statement best explains the constitutionality of the denial?

• A. The permit rule targets religious practices and is unconstitutional.
• B. The regulation is based on hostility to religious groups and is unconstitutional.
• C. The Establishment Clause prohibits regulation of religious conduct in public lands.
• D. The regulation is neutral on its face and in application and serves an important public safety interest; the denial is valid.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is that a government restriction on religious activity can be constitutional if the rule is neutral and generally applicable, and it serves an important public interest. In this scenario, the land-use ban on overnight camping and campfires is a safety regulation that applies to everyone, not just a religious group. It isn’t aimed at suppressing religious practice, and it applies broadly to all park users, so it’s neutral on its face and in its application.

Because it serves an important public safety interest—reducing fire risk and protecting visitors and resources—the denial of the permit fits the standard for neutral, generally applicable laws burdens on religious exercise without triggering strict scrutiny. Under this framework, such a regulation can be upheld even if it incidentally affects worship or religious practice.

If the rule were not neutral or generally applicable—for example, it targeted a religious group or singled out particular religious practices—the analysis would change, and the regulation could be struck down. The Establishment Clause isn’t the controlling issue here; the relevant test is neutrality and general applicability under the Free Exercise framework, with safety as the legitimate government interest.